Intel previously delayed the release of its Pentium 4 from September 30 to October 20 due to a bug in the i850 chipset. The bug caused data corruption if certain PCI graphics cards were used to power a second monitor at the same time that an AGP graphics card is used. Intel never officially commented on the delay, but the news came from several PC makers.

Now CNet is reporting that the i850 problem is still in chipsets that shipped in Pentium 4 systems. Intel only delayed the Pentium 4 launch to “… study the extent and cause of the problem.” Furthermore, CNet reports: “'Although the bug has yet to be fixed, the limited circumstances in which it can cause problems did not justify further delays,' said Howard High, an Intel spokesman.”

ROB'S OPINION
From reading the several news items about this delay when it first surfaced, I got the impression that Intel was delaying the chipset to fix the problem (destroy chipsets/motherboards that were affected, manufacture new ones that are free from the bug), but really it was just an investigation to see what it should do. It would have been nice if the tight-lipped Intel had stated this plainly in the first place instead of saying only that the P4 will still ship in Q4 2000 and then telling us later that there's an identified bug in the i850 chipsets that are floating around. I guess Intel wanted to make all of its Pentium 4 Christmas sales before quietly letting the cat out of the bag through CNet, the media outlet that it still owns a piece of, during the slowest week of the year.

We did our initial news item covering the delay on September 29th. Apparently, 50 days is not enough time for a recall, just enough to study this bug and then pretend it doesn't exist until after the holidays. More details can be found in the initial CNet news item where one PC maker praises Intel for its decision to hold up the Pentium 4. I'm not sure if that company is still praising Intel or not after the most recent news. There's also info at The Register in this and another news item.

The gist of the several items is that the problem only affects you if you plug a second graphics card into a PCI slot. If you use a dual-monitor AGP board like those made by Matrox and NVidia you are fine. Further, the problem may not happen with every PCI graphics card–perhaps just a few, or even a single type. However, Intel isn't giving us any details to go on. Now, if you decide you want a second graphics card/monitor on a Pentium 4 system, you are playing Russian Roulette. The odds are that only a small percentage of Pentium 4 users will try this right away, but down the road that percentage will increase as people upgrade their systems.

Let me outline a scenario where I would not be irritated with Intel's conduct regarding this bug/errata:

Intel makes announcement on September 29th about the issue and the delay, giving actual reasons for the delay and letting us know that it is investigating, not yet fixing.

Sometime before the P4 release on November 20th, Intel announces that it is shipping chipsets that contain the bug and lets people know exactly which graphics cards make the problem happen.

Intel produces software to help you identify the chipset and offers motherboard replacements to anyone affected by the bug.

Sound preposterous? Well, perhaps Intel should have just fixed the bug in the first place when it alluded to it instead of shipping with it to save a few bucks. Intel chose not to announce anything because it's cheaper for it to cover itself than to fix the error across the board. I should note that even on September 29th, Intel claimed that the i850 chipsets it was producing then had fixed the issue. It all comes down to how many i850s Intel stockpiled before that date. If it's a very limited amount, why did Intel ship them? If it's a lot, why didn't it tell us what was going on? Here, you see the dilemma.

USER COMMENTS 16 comment(s)

This is why i wait to upgrade…(1:01pm EST Wed Dec 27 2000)I NEVER buy the newest/first of anything when it comes to computer stuff. I always wait for the 2nd one to come out before I make a decision. Intel has done this before (P-60, P3-1130 are the best examples so far I think). – by chip@geek.com

Linux and P4(1:06pm EST Wed Dec 27 2000)Well I guess there was a good reason some of the Linux distros did not bother to add the P4 stuff into their kernels. Why do all that work if Intel does not have their stuff together. – by Rax

Not a flame(4:31pm EST Wed Dec 27 2000)How often do pepole actually run two indipendant monitors? With the exception of some CAD applications, can somebody enlighten me of a reason for doing this? – by Woodsprite

Re: Not a flame(4:56pm EST Wed Dec 27 2000)hi, Woodsprite. Two monitors are veryuseful when debugging a program with a gui, it runs on one monitor and the debugger and source and text editor run on the other.– by gs

i use two!(4:58pm EST Wed Dec 27 2000)as a student, i use two monitors for research on one screen and Word on the other…necessary no, convenient yes. i also used two monitors at work for a similar reason. – by sel

I use 3(5:11pm EST Wed Dec 27 2000)Mostly because I can, and because it is useful. Plus it's a great use for those old monitors and Video Cards. – by etcetera

Only the beginning(6:30pm EST Wed Dec 27 2000)I hate to be so pessimistic.. no wait..

I love it! When I think of all the crap my pessimism keeps from getting stuck in… all right nevermind that;anyhow, my point on this topic is just that… a point…err or is it a tip , yes !This is the tip of the iceberg! Intel has been having ALOT of problems in the last year and a half and many of those problems come from their chipsets not working the way they were designed to or even…. NOT WORK AT ALL! Sure am glad that AMD cleaned their act up after the K5 debacle!

Anyhoo…. if all that stuff about the P-IV not having all these nice things in it that the engineers wanted it to have is true AN D it's true that Intel still wants to shrink the process on it down a few microns, why the hell would anyone want to buy one now? Here's another neat one:You'll need a new power supply with auxilliary power because this behemoth is thirsty for JUICE! 300Watt minimum with a special connector. What a waste!Buy an Athlon and quit funding Intel. They're gonna bail on the Pent's anyways and right now they aren't gonna put anything cool into them that their engineers dream up because they're afraid that it will take the wind out of their sails (errr… sales?) when the IA-64 comes out.

Harumph!! – by PRFunky

people(1:12am EST Thu Dec 28 2000)Woodsprite, the kind of people who run two monitors are the same kind of people who will go out and buy a P4 to run the software that they use on those two monitors.

Here's another example to add to the list: graphic designers and video editors. They put their editing window in one monitor and their plethora of tool windows in the other.– by format c:

Geek gamers(7:57am EST Thu Dec 28 2000)I have a UT/Q3A/TFC freak, and I'm also a UNIX sysadmin, I haven't been able to get 2 monitors running in the past (due to my card and lack of extra monitor for about 3 years now), but I plan to on my next upgrade to run a game on one screen, and a custom shell log window on the other. – by Wesley Mason

2 monitors(7:20pm EST Fri Jan 12 2001)I think that 2 monitors on a P4 system wud not be uncommon. They are for the workstation market and many workstations run dual monitors. Also if you can afford a P4 you can for sure afford a dual monitor set-up. – by one800tnt

Using dual monitors for tfc(7:39pm EST Thu Nov 14 2002)I would like to know how to set up dual monitors for use with TFC. I havn't been able to get the game to run on both monitors. XP Pro, Ti4400, Dual Xp1800's(yes XP's Tiger board)512ddr.Thanks for da help! – by Knoserunner